Re: [rmcat] comments on draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb-02

Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 06 October 2013 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F91C11E8114 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.4
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_SUMOF=5, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gz0nDbzKHYlc for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD7411E8118 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id e14so13589246iej.38 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 09:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=8dWgu/9/cOel5v154oboVZwfZjuHBu9Wt5cFJVC52AI=; b=S61LleCXa4ot9J+mNhyNPafIqtP95JDuDqIZxPB32yXizl0Ty4F/8o4KldTiFIIFWK kbMv3I0EHep+W97njHvTChPLFGGhPxNkZBs7edlf0ppvCZ+U04utXIhKWwELI8VtxlVv 0R3+V6f4oWRHIXi4jlogxsa5mrHz1urL5p9C9NZiMlIUJ6gdS2ljflBjZTiF+hTPWP6Q XHXkJXj8an4AddxeOlAhOolmpqOCFFH8ubf5VyjAUWc1sCBrZAwfycz2S5NnTYqJGamA LvvvhlOGYOOQFtDuP/mM7NrzsfbzSHqljwAc0qR0HZe22RVvv1QmuaO/75E1G++CPVt4 vRKA==
X-Received: by 10.50.106.20 with SMTP id gq20mr13930398igb.36.1381077978469; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 09:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.7.35 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5251549C.3080500@db.org>
References: <5251549C.3080500@db.org>
From: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:45:58 +0300
Message-ID: <CAEbPqryhXwbtyq0du38c5q0G6XceAZZWJN=5Vh0Wdq0HBAux8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alfred E. Heggestad" <aeh@db.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: rmcat WG <rmcat@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] comments on draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb-02
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmcat>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:46:38 -0000

Hi Alfred,

Some comment inline.

-Varun

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Alfred E. Heggestad <aeh@db.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some comments/questions about draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb-02
>
>
> - is the new RTCP AFB message valid for all kinds of streams ?
>   audio, video etc ?
>

It depends on how many and which SSRCs are reported in the feedback message.
As per the draft, it is up to the implementation (or the congestion
control algorithm)
to choose which SSRCs, i.e., it could report just the SSRCs of audio
or video or a combination.

> - the maximum bitrate, is it defined as the maximum bitrate for
>   a particular stream, or the maximum bitrate for the whole "Session" ?
>

One method of calculating the receiver's maximum estimate is defined by
Google's congestion control (GCC) in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion

As per GCC, REMB can be used for reporting the sum of the receiver
estimate across all media streams that share the same end-to-end path.
I supposed the SSRCs of the multiple media streams that make up the
aggregate estimate
are reported in the block.

> - the message is using a unique identifier "REMB" to de-multiplex incoming
>   AFB messages, is this method defined in a spec somewhere, and is there

The demultiplexing is defined in Section 6.4 of RFC4585,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4585#section-6.4

>   a central registry of other types of AFB messages?
>
> - section 2.3 OPEN ISSUE, I dont think explicit signaling is needed.
>
>
>
>
> /alfred



-- 
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/